18 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieNothing tough about this one.
You really don't understand the concept, do you? Your friend divegeester seems to miss the point
as well. Let me try and clarify.
Individual freedom is the same as having free time to spend on whatever pursuit tickles you. You
can work on your free time, or you can pursuit a hobby, have sex with a thermos filled with
minced meat or whatever you fancy ...[text shortened]... ra of choices whomever you are, with little manual labour?
It's a toughie, isn't it?
I recognise your right to live your life free from force and threats of force, the same is required of you in regard to your fellow man, you are then free to form cashless societies and other collectives but only with those that volunteer to join such organisations.
We can go round and round arguing about which system is best, if 'your' system is the way to go it will win out in the end, but let it do so without stealing peoples lives and property.
18 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAh ha,
I have not followed Jigtie's posts very closely, so I cannot tell you exactly what he is advocating. As I'm posting in his thread it might seem as though I am advocating the same thing. I'm not entirely sure that I am. I would like to see a socialist society (and I think Jesus was a socialist), but I realize it is not likely to happen. At least not in my li orst excesses of capitalism to be heavily regulated.
That, divegeester, is what I want.
Just as I thought, your ideas are so whack you need to bring down successful people and businesses to the level of your 'ideals'. You're not talking about level playing fields you're talking about hobbling top athletes. A level playing field would not see special 'low interest loans' for your pet projects, you can go to the bank same as anyone, present your ideas and let those who stand to loose the money assess the risks of your ideas.
I don't advocate any 'heavy regulation' on your collectivist fantasies, if your ideas come to fruition and are extremely successful with millions of people joining your group or groups, so be it, but don't send your goons around to my house making demands for contributions to fund you and yours.
Just don't expect the privately owned bank to have to fund the start up of your collectivised bank, don't expect the privately owned farm to fund the start up of your collectivised farm. That is not hobbling an athlete, that is forcing them to bind themselves.
I wish you all the best in your dreams, but make sure that you do not resort to forcing those dreams on others. Let them stand on their merits.
If you hate capitalism so much, why do you rely on it to fund your ideals?
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by duecerIts hard finding the consensus on mutual interests when the relationship between the two groups has been marred by decades of suspicion and mistrust, but you would hope that at any stage the groups might set aside their histories and find a pragmatic way forward.
In an ideal society that wouldn't be necessary. The real trouble as I see it, is that (since the dawn of the industrial revolution) "owners" and "workers" have been at odds with each other. The owners fail to recognize that mutual self-interst is what makes a market economy strong. On the other side, workers need to respect market forces during a downward trend. Mutual self interests are the key
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by WajomaYou're overdramatic. I rather enjoy that, but it's impossible having an intelligent conversation with
Nothing tough about this one.
I recognise your right to live your life free from force and threats of force, the same is required of you in regard to your fellow man, you are then free to form cashless societies and other collectives but only with those that volunteer to join such organisations.
We can go round and round arguing about which system is be ...[text shortened]... o go it will win out in the end, but let it do so without stealing peoples lives and property.
your wajoman ass. LOL!
Yes, we agree that physical force is out of the question. Truth is, that whatever system you live
under, even if you live all alone in the woods, you have to work for the essentials. I don't know
why you keep talking about stealing peoples lives and property. On the contrary, everyone gets
plenty of time to pursuit individual interests, and everyone owns everything. Can't own much
more on this green globe than the entire planet, can you? Is it the sharing part you have a
problem with? It is, isn't it? Tell me, how is it not "stealing" peoples property to say you own this
much land, which will pass to your kids, and denying everyone else access to the same land?
We're all born into this world clean slates. Don't we all have a share in it?
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieIf everybody owned everything then the strongest guy would have everything, if you lived in a house someone could kick you out, if you owned a car someone could kick you out, if you owned a shop someone could kick you out, get the idea?
You're overdramatic. I rather enjoy that, but it's impossible having an intelligent conversation with
your wajoman ass. LOL!
Yes, we agree that physical force is out of the question. Truth is, that whatever system you live
under, even if you live all alone in the woods, you have to work for the essentials. I don't know
why you keep talking abo ...[text shortened]... land?
We're all born into this world clean slates. Don't we all have a share in it?
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel58Exactly, this is what anarchists fail to realize - they think anarchy will lead to everyone being equal when in fact it leads to the greatest possible inequality.
If everybody owned everything then the strongest guy would have everything, if you lived in a house someone could kick you out, if you owned a car someone could kick you out, if you owned a shop someone could kick you out, get the idea?
19 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel58Not necessarily true. Just like you can own private capital in a capitalist state and have your "rights"
If everybody owned everything then the strongest guy would have everything, if you lived in a house someone could kick you out, if you owned a car someone could kick you out, if you owned a shop someone could kick you out, get the idea?
protected by society, so can everyone own all available capital and have their rights protected. This
is a non-issue for any society but an anarchist one of uncivilised people.
20 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieYes, but what are you going to do with your three hectares of good Missouri bottom-land awarded to you at birth? (I'm ignoring the suggestion that we can go back to non-ownership of land -- returning to a hunter-gatherer society at this stage isn't conceivable for many reasons -- but mostly because billions would have to die.)
Tell me, how is it not "stealing" peoples property to say you own this
much land, which will pass to your kids, and denying everyone else access to the same land?
We're all born into this world clean slates. Don't we all have a share in it?
You are not a farmer, and you don't want to be a farmer. Plus you have no equipment to farm with, no livestock, etc. Furthermore, you want to live in Orlando.
So what are you going to do with your land? You are going to sell it, obviously.
And that's why all these "if-we-only-all-had-equal-shares" land-redistribution arguments are nonsense. Go back in history -- and yes, your ancestors had just as much land as anyone else. But your ancestors sold when they should have held or held when they should have sold -- and so you find yourself where you are today.
This notion that what you inherit is so much more important than what you earn is, I think, misguided. Still, it is an interesting question how much inheritance should be "allowed". Warren Buffet has famously stated that his kids will get a million bucks each with the rest going to charity. It's not a bad idea -- but I'm not sure why it should be legislated. Descendants of rich folks often don't have the sense God gave grey geese anyway -- something about being raised in a cocoon doesn't help the survival instincts.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358What on earth are you talking about? Who said anything about going back to a hunter-gatherer
Yes, but what are you going to do with your three hectares of good Missouri bottom-land awarded to you at birth? (I'm ignoring the suggestion that we can go back to non-ownership of land -- returning to a hunter-gatherer society at this stage isn't conceivable for many reasons -- but mostly because billions would have to die.)
society? Are these the only two options you can think of? Either we accept inequality in capital
ownership, or we run around half-naked smacking stones together for sparks?
Sweet peaches! This is nuts.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by spruce112358Would you say that your kids are in any way responsible for what actions you've taken in life? Will
Go back in history -- and yes, your ancestors had just as much land as anyone else. But your ancestors sold when they should have held or held when they should have sold -- and so you find yourself where you are today.
your grand kids be responsible for your actions? It's one thing that a bunch of family folks made
some mistakes leading to them living in misery for the rest of their lives, but why should their kids
have to suffer and pay back what the parents owed each other? Isn't that like the stone-age
mentality you just talked about reverting too?
(And don't give me any of these "it works in nature"-crap arguments, please.)
These are legacy systems, possibly useful at one time, but now they're more of a hindrance to
societal progress. If people are from birth unequal in society, we can't ever move ahead to
anything better.
20 Jul 09
I believe it comes down to the basic differences beteen Rousseau and Locke. Rousseau had a notion that people were inately good in nature, and therefore would work towards a common goal to the betterment of the society. Locke on the other hand believed in "original sin" and the evil selfish nature of man, which is why he proposed we protect only the unalienable rights while we allow every man to drive toward their selfish desires. He believed as long as we don't harm other along the way, then we are doing the best we can as humans. Like Voltaire said "your right to swing your fist, ends at the end of my nose".
I only point this all out to say, it really comes down to what you believe man is like in the "state of nature" as to how any government could be agreed upon. Does that make any sense?
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieYes. And even then there is never going to be inequality in capital ownership.
Either we accept inequality in capital
ownership, or we run around half-naked smacking stones together for sparks?
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. " - Frank Zappa
It's as simple as that.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieYou can drop the faux condescension, coming from you its hollow.
You're overdramatic. I rather enjoy that, but it's impossible having an intelligent conversation with
your wajoman ass. LOL!
Yes, we agree that physical force is out of the question. Truth is, that whatever system you live
under, even if you live all alone in the woods, you have to work for the essentials. I don't know
why you keep talking abo ...[text shortened]... land?
We're all born into this world clean slates. Don't we all have a share in it?
Got nothing against sharing, but I will decide who, when, where and why. Some people immediately off the list:
1/ All those that think I owe them something just because we are the same species.
2/ All those that think I owe them something just because by some accident of birth they were born within the same arbitrary line on the ground called a border.
The situation is now that there is a lot of privately owned property, as an example I own a small piece, it's taken some years of effort on my part to purchase that small piece. You want to take that from me and divide it up. The only way you can do that is by force the effect is you will have stolen those years of effort.
And if I don't accept those terms for 'sharing' that you lay down... what then? You will resort to force, your 'ideals' rest on the principle that you think you know better than others how to run their lives and you're prepared to shape them by force if necessary.
So are we all entitled to a share? No. Just because the folk down the road spit out another ten kids does not reduce what I have already worked for, created by my own hands and mind.
21 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieThe gall knows no bounds.
If by work, you mean scientific research or art or anything else not essential to our survival, I'm
guessing people will keep doing these things from their curiosity and need to express themselves.
There are those in society that value art, there are those that wish to pursue it as a career, these two people get together and exchange value for value.
Without you dictating that the artist must do x number of hours in the fields or factory.
There are those in society that value scientific research and all the great things that come as a result, there are those that wish to pursue a career in research, these two people get together and exchange value for value.
Without you dictating that the scientist must do x hours in the fields or factory.